But here's my tidbit as far as the economic discussion is concerned:
Keynes was mostly right about domestic spending and growth. In fact, the 1940s basically showed that more than anything else. He was once even quoted to say that his ideas weren't politically feasable, except in war time. Only during WW2 were his ideas ever realized. All the semi-socialistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s weren't really Keynesian at all.
The problem with Keynesian economics is the spread of globalization. You see, under Keynesian theory, the government had oversight and could "inject" capital into weak sectors that should be upheld. You can't do this with a globalized economy. There is no way to effectivly regulate other countries, and therefore the government has little power. We used to, but that was only because our economy was HUGE compared to others, and a lot of nations did not want to trade with the USSR. Now it's a whole different animal.
The effect has been this: Government capital injection into private industry does not have the effect that it used to have. Back in the 1940s, when a dollar was spent here in the US by the government, it would circulate through industries again and again and again, and it would stay in this country. With globalization and the way that money basically travels through finance companies (who often leverage a dollar seven different ways overseas), and our lack of true exports, government spending does not have near the effect that it used to.
I could go on and on about Milton Friedman as well, but he's seen as some right-winger when that's really not the case. He had some VERY socialistic ideas that were mixed in to a free market system. I personally think his sytem would work fairly well if followed as he said, but the right wing only wants to take the free-market part, and not the not the minimum income guarenteed by his ideas.
But whatever, economists aren't actually listened to. They just peel the ideas off of us that match their pre-determined mindset.